We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in short eyes.
IMPORTANCE: Intraocular lens (IOL) power selection is a critical factor affecting visual outcome after IOL implantation in short eyes. Many formulas have been developed to achieve a precise prediction of the IOL power. However, controversy regarding the accuracy remains.
BACKGROUND: To investigate the accuracy of different IOL power calculation formulas in short eyes.
DESIGN: Meta-analysis.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients with the axial length of eyes less than 22 mm from previously reported studies.
METHODS: A comprehensive search in Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted by October 2016. We assessed the methodological quality using a modified QUADAS-2 tool and performed analysis on weighted mean differences of mean absolute errors (MAE) among different formulas.
MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The between-group difference of MAE was evaluated with weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Ten observational studies, involving 1161 eyes, were enrolled to compare six formulas: Haigis, Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T and SRK II. Among them, the Holladay 2 introduced the smallest overall MAE (0.496D) without statistical significance. The difference of MAE is statistically significant between Haigis and Hoffer Q (mean difference = -0.07D, P = 0.003), Haigis and SRK/T (mean difference = -0.07D, P = 0.009), Haigis and SRK II (mean difference = -0.41D, P = 0.01). For publication bias and small-study effect, neither funnel plot nor egger's test detected statistical finding.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The overall evidence from the studies confirmed the superiority of Haigis over Hoffer Q, SRK/T and SRK II in prediction IOL power in short eyes.
BACKGROUND: To investigate the accuracy of different IOL power calculation formulas in short eyes.
DESIGN: Meta-analysis.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients with the axial length of eyes less than 22 mm from previously reported studies.
METHODS: A comprehensive search in Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted by October 2016. We assessed the methodological quality using a modified QUADAS-2 tool and performed analysis on weighted mean differences of mean absolute errors (MAE) among different formulas.
MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The between-group difference of MAE was evaluated with weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Ten observational studies, involving 1161 eyes, were enrolled to compare six formulas: Haigis, Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T and SRK II. Among them, the Holladay 2 introduced the smallest overall MAE (0.496D) without statistical significance. The difference of MAE is statistically significant between Haigis and Hoffer Q (mean difference = -0.07D, P = 0.003), Haigis and SRK/T (mean difference = -0.07D, P = 0.009), Haigis and SRK II (mean difference = -0.41D, P = 0.01). For publication bias and small-study effect, neither funnel plot nor egger's test detected statistical finding.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The overall evidence from the studies confirmed the superiority of Haigis over Hoffer Q, SRK/T and SRK II in prediction IOL power in short eyes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app